Talk:Unnamed humanoids (22nd century)
Moves I have moved Alien Dockmaster to Dockmaster on Pernaia Prime's moon under Unnamed Markalians since they are the same thing. Noman I have removed Large alien from article and moved it to unnamed Kreetassan, Kreetassan in the Pernaia system. Noman :This ia a page for unnamed humanoid species, not unnamed alien characters. Persons should be grouped by species and each species paragraph should contain a short description of the physical characteristics of said alien race, like on the corresponding page for the Unnamed humanoids (24th century). --Jörg 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I have moved Decon agents to Tret species. --Noman 16:10, 30 July 2006 * It is preferred that you write comments like these in the "summary" bar. --Alan del Beccio 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Moved Alien #1 and #2 to illusionary people, since they are figments of Hoshi's imagination, and not real. 70.105.200.111 Can someone add pix of alien head guard. Similarity You know, the dark-skinned slave girl looks kind of like Larell's species. --The King In Shreds And Tatters 02:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC) : No, I don't think so. Have a closer look on her forehead. Larell has a sharp forhead and this woman a circular bulge. – Tom 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC) ::We'd need a higher-rez picture to be sure, but the light-dark plane change on the central makes it look like there's a sharper edge. Can anyone get a screencap from a DVD? --The King In Shreds And Tatters 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I found this image (pic 10) of her on the site of the make-up guy who was responsible for her. Although there is a similarity between both, there are also slight differences in the prosthetics and I doubt they are from the same race. – Tom 09:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) ::I don't know, the bulked-up brows looks remarkably similar and they both have a sharp crest on their central forehead mass. The hairline pattern is different though, and neither of them are named, so we can't really draw any final conclusions. --The King In Shreds And Tatters 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Rigel X Box Woman Her makeup is apparently identical to the Lorillians. --The King In Shreds And Tatters 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC) :Hmmm...I think you're right. Probably justifies a move to the Unnamed Lorillians page, but lets see what other people think first.– Cleanse talk 05:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC) ::Agreed. They share the same look. – Tom 09:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) :Moved to Unnamed Lorillians.– Cleanse talk 07:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Terra Prime Is that the marmot seller's species there (plus some others)? --Golden Monkey 13:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Removed Removed the following uncited similarity- needs proof it was deliberate to be in the article. He resembles a wraith from the stargate atlantis franchise however he is slightly greener whilst wraithes have a blue green mixture that usualy leans more to blue or white noteabley Charles tucker's actor also played a major wraith charecter --31dot 20:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Similar but different skin colors Several sets of species that show up in different episodes appear similar, with the only difference being their skin color. "Rajiin"'s Slave Girl 4 (the one with green spots and elongated ears) looks a lot like the dark-skinned dignitary from "Demons" and "Terra Prime" (played by Daphney Damereaux): Alien dignitary 2 2155.jpg|Dignitary Xanthan Bazaar slave girl 4.jpg|Slave Girl 4 The male of the alien couple seen on the bazzar in "Rajiin" (the one with the circular ridges) looks a lot like the blue skinned alien with identical ridges seen in "The Seventh" Xanthan Homeworld couple.jpg|Male alien (left) Green skinned alien, The Seventh.jpg|Pernaia Prime visitor The race that attacked the Horizon in "Horizon" looks similar to both the dead alien found in "Anomaly" and one of the slavers in "Borderland": Alien corpse, 2153.jpg|Alien Corpse Alien Captain.jpg|Unknown Alien Captain I'm not sure if these races are similar enough to be considered identical, and I don't know if they should be grouped together, but if others agree with me, at the very least the similarities should be mentioned. --TrekkieCub314 (talk) 17:43, November 15, 2014 (UTC) :That seems pretty convincing to me, but then again I'm not really good at spot-the-difference. Could someone that's got some experience with this kind of stuff weight in please? This really seems like a worthy thing to look into. -- Capricorn (talk) 03:55, November 17, 2014 (UTC) ::This sort of thing is always tough to judge. There are many aliens that look like humans, for example. There are few ways to know if aliens who appear the same are indeed the same, without it being specifically said or seeing them all together at once. The real reason so many look alike is that makeup was reused. I would tend to lean against saying aliens are the same race just by looking at them, but it is tough to judge. 31dot (talk) 11:55, November 18, 2014 (UTC) From: Talk:Unnamed non-humanoids (22nd century) "Non-Humanoid"? They have two legs, two arms, one head with what we can reasonably assume are eyes and mouth, and they wear space suits. What exactly makes them non-humanoid? Xavius, Envoy of Fluidic Space 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :Everything. They acted very differently, and they might not have been eyes. I think this species is a "might-be-but-probably-not-humanoid". No-one else has said anything. Dave''Subspace Message'' 19:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) ::Got to disagree. What "everything"? I'm having trouble finding ANYTHING non-humanoid about them. Bipedal, standard arms, standard legs, and yes, those are eyes. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC) :::The way to resolve this would be to look at what production sources call them. -- Capricorn (talk) 05:46, September 9, 2013 (UTC) Splitting "Shroomies" I'd like to suggest that the "Shroomies" part of this article be split to its own page. Firstly, as can be seen in the above discussion, it has been disputed whether these actually are "non-humanoids." Secondly, the amount of info on this page about these particular aliens is much more than info about any of the other listed non-humanoids. --Defiant (talk) 12:21, September 8, 2013 (UTC) :Support, valid reasoning in my opinion, especially on the info argument, which is enough to warrant a page onto itself. Pages like these are, in my opinion, intended as "list" pages on subjects on which no, or extremely limited info is available...--Sennim (talk) 12:32, September 8, 2013 (UTC) ::Support, although I'm not sure I like the idea of naming the new article "Shroomie". That was a background name only; a casual reader wouldn't know what to search for. That said, I can't really think of a good alternative. - Mitchz95 (talk) 15:12, September 8, 2013 (UTC) :::Oppose - Where was it ever said that these kinds of pages were only for stuff where little information was available? Like the page name says, it's for unnamed things, simple as that. I'm very worried about the precedent of moving this kind of information to their own pages with ad hoc names, just because we feel they've outgrown the pages they're on. It's bound to become extremely arbitrary very quickly, maybe less so with the rather scarce unnamed-non humanoids set of pages, but definatly with for example all the Unnamed humanoids, Unnamed planets, or Unnamed engineering tools pages (which surely must follow similar rules if we're to have consistency). :::Btw: The concern if they're non-humanoid or not is a valid one; but it has absolutely nothing to do with splitting. if they're humanoid, then (for now) all that would mean is that they should need to be moved to Unnamed humanoids (22nd century). -- Capricorn (talk) 05:45, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :::Come to think of it; given that the length is mostly due to the extensive discussion of the design, maybe spinning that section off into an article on the model would be a solution more in line with established practice? -- Capricorn (talk) 05:52, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :Remark--The naming is not as "ad hoc" as you make it out to be. Is has been common practice at MA to use names generally used by the production staff in valid background resources, especially by the ones who created the items in question, in lieu of instances where no in-universe designations are available, no matter if they seem "flippant" (case in point: ). That being said, I see merit in your other arguments, and your split suggestion seems like a nice alternative. By the way, a casual reader does not know what to look for, period. It's unnamed in-universe;)--Sennim (talk) 10:29, September 9, 2013 (UTC) ::::There's still a difference between a name that really was intended for use (but just didn't make it for whatever reasons) and a name that clearly is an inofficial nickname. "Shroomies" clearly is a case of the latter, but not the former, so we should not use it as an article title. I agree with the comment that it might be moved to a different "unnamed" page (although, if we can't be sure at all whether they are "humanoid" or "non-humanoid", the best place would be a list that assumes neither), but oppose a split to "Shroomies". -- Cid Highwind (talk) 10:47, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :Following your line of reasoning, the example of Alka-Selsior, then, is not a valid article title either (the study model was never intended for use in the first place). Anyway, that is for another occasion. As for naming, how about "unnamed aliens (+century and Quadrant)" (this would circumvent the whole humanoid/non-humanoid question) and for the case at hand: "Unnamed alien(s)" ?--Sennim (talk) 11:21, September 9, 2013 (UTC) ::::But the model did make it to the screen, and supposedly had a decal with that name on it at the time. That makes it "invisible, but there" - which is one of the weakest types of resource we allow, but still a little more than "a funny moniker used by some production guys while internally talking about stuff". :) If you want to bring the validity of the Alka-Selsior up for discussion, you might even have my support in questioning it (because I believe we are straying too far from what's considered "canon" at times) - but for the time being, it seems to be a stronger name than "Shroomies". ::::I think it's a good idea to get rid of humanoid/non-humanoid in the title (because we most often don't know), but there's a problem with the alternative suggestions as well: we often don't know their home quadrant, either, the century is subjective (these aliens might have first been encountered in the 22nd century, but that doesn't mean they don't exist earlier or later). Still, it might still be preferable to "humanoid/non-humanoid". -- Cid Highwind (talk) 11:49, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :"we often don't know their home quadrant, either, the century is subjective ", no argument there, as this is absolutely the case. But doesn't this hold true then, for all the other "Unnamed Humanoids/Non-humanoids (+century)" pages. The way I see it, as they are in-universe pages, the in-universe people (mostly from Earth perspective) do not know themselves, so (in-universally) designating them with time and place of first (and often only, as far as we know) encounter seems as good as any other. Perhaps, in order to minimize befuddlement, we could limit ourself to the century then, such as "Unnamed aliens (22nd Century)", as is currently the case. I think for a real world article, "Unnamed alien model" would do. My two cents...--Sennim (talk) 12:26, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :::To clarify my "ad hoc" comment; I'm not saying Shroomies is an ad-hoc name, but merely that once we start splitting of articles from the unnamed xxx type pages, there's going to be a lot of pages of the format "term (of episode they were in because the name we've settled on is so damn generic)". (the generic term probably being something like "species", "planet", "guard", etc.). Some fiction wikis handle stuff that way, and I've always found our way superior from a searching standpoint. :::Considering the whole humanoid/non-humanoid debate: again, that's really not relevant to the split. Either we split the Shroomies of and it's irrelevant, or we don't and there should be a sepperate discussion on keeping it here or moving it to unnamed humanoids, or as Sennin suggest restructure the whole system. But in any case, it's a different question altogether, and could we have it somewhere else please? -- Capricorn (talk) 12:29, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :Hence my final remark, I was reverting back to your suggestion to split of the production POV part into its own article--Sennim (talk) 12:45, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :::::Oppose split to "Shroomies". Support moving them to Unnamed humanoids (22nd century), since the "definition" makes it pretty clear they were humanoids. We also have other options for dealing with appendix sections in "list" articles beyond splitting it off. - 07:50, January 8, 2014 (UTC) :I've moved the information about the "Shroomies" to the Unnamed humanoids (22nd century) article as it seems this is the consensus. I also removed the split tag as there is no consensus about an own article. IMO, I prefer keeping this information on this page and don't create an own article. Just because one of the "unnamed species" has a bit more information, the current article list won't explode. Tom (talk) 16:49, March 8, 2015 (UTC) Redux I'm suggesting the "Shroomies" info to a new page called "Shroomie", since this is the only name we have for them. There's also quite a lot of info about that species. --Defiant (talk) 00:52, October 11, 2016 (UTC) :Same as above, so oppose. - 00:55, October 11, 2016 (UTC) You actually haven't stated a rationale either above (at least as far as I can see) or here. Therefore, your objection is nullified. --Defiant (talk) 01:02, October 11, 2016 (UTC) :My rationale is clear based on the context, which is these are unnamed. Since you haven't presented a new rationale, or a reason to nullify the previous objections to said rationale, you've done nothing but make this the "same as above." - 05:22, October 11, 2016 (UTC) Sorry for the lateness of my reply; I hadn't noticed you'd posted here. Anyway, as I'm sure you already know, MA's resource policy states, "There are only two exceptions where material not directly seen or heard in an episode or film may be used in a section considered to be in-universe," and I'd obviously argue that the first of those exceptions (i.e., "To name items or people that were seen or referred to on-screen but not referred to by name") applies to the Shroomies example. I'm still not sure why you're objecting to what is or (at least) seems to me to be a clear use of policy. --Defiant (talk) 20:52, October 19, 2016 (UTC) ::I think the reason why some people don’t want to split the page is because "Shroomie" is more of a joke than an actual name. It would be a bit like saying "spoonhead" is a legitimate name for that species that once occupied Bajor. ::On the other hand, the policy doesn’t say "joke names don’t count" and the Shroomies already have a page under that name on the Alien Species Wiki. ::The name "Shroomies" is used once in the novel A Choice of Futures, where it’s immediately condemned as a juvenile slur. The rest of the novel calls them Mutes. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:20, October 20, 2016 (UTC) :"The primary reason for this is to avoid creating a large number of "unnamed" subject pages when an official name already exists." :"Shroomies" was never intended to be the "official" name for this species, any more than "Warp Delta", "Future Guy", or "Cupcake" were for their respective story elelments. With the exception of the last, all of these are nicknames given to an otherwise unnamed and under developed story element becuase the producers of Enterprise couldn't have cared less. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the "unnamed" things we have had nicknames on set, like many of the aliens in the alternate reality films, but we don't use those as "canon" names because we know they were never intended to be that. It's just that people tend to need a name to talk about something in an efficient and coherent manner. - 19:08, October 20, 2016 (UTC) ::::At the very least, set nicknames provide a better header for the species' section on the unnamed pages than "Alien with four nostrils" and "Green mohawked biped". --LauraCC (talk) 19:11, October 20, 2016 (UTC) :::::I don't see anything in the redux rationale that wasn't already said and rejected in the last discussion. I'm open to new arguments, but without them I'm still opposed and this split should not happen per the last discussion. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:31, October 21, 2016 (UTC) But there is no logical rationale for not splitting the page!! --Defiant (talk) 07:40, October 26, 2016 (UTC) This discussion isn't going to go away without any logical rationale for refuting it. --Defiant (talk) 19:49, November 1, 2016 (UTC) ::::::If the consensus doesn't change, then the discussion stops. If NEW evidence or reasoning comes to the fore, then re-present it and perhaps change the consensus then. -- sulfur (talk) 20:06, November 1, 2016 (UTC) Wrong; the discussion stops when people stop discussing it. And as I said before, the consensus isn't based on anything. In other words, there's every reason for splitting this page. --Defiant (talk) 20:13, November 1, 2016 (UTC) ::::::That's what you've presented. That's not what the general feeling above is (both here and the prior discussion, between which it doesn't strike me as any new evidence or information has been presented). -- sulfur (talk) 20:16, November 1, 2016 (UTC) As I said, the presentment of new evidence or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant. If the idea of splitting the article is to be opposed (which seems to be the case), I'm still awaiting logical rationale for that. --Defiant (talk) 20:20, November 1, 2016 (UTC) Yellow-Skinned Men Can someone please rearrange the article, so that all the yellow-skinned men are listed together? I tried to do it myself, but something went wrong and it ended up getting reverted. NetSpiker (talk) 06:42, March 12, 2015 (UTC) :Stop using the visual editior, it's garbage. Turn it off in your preferences, and you might as well turn off the category select module as well, if you want to stop having things go wrong with your edits. - 12:44, March 12, 2015 (UTC) I was thinking that if I used the source editor, it wouldn't copy the images, but it did. Thanks! NetSpiker (talk) 12:53, March 12, 2015 (UTC)